Google is once again a monopoly, this time in advertising technology
A federal judge today ruled that Google is monopolized in some parts of the online advertising market and shows the second case in the year in which the company is subject to violation of US anti -monopoly law. Last August, a federal judge ruled that Google is looking for illegal monopoly.
Judge Leoni Brinkema of the US Regional Court for the Eastern Virginia region has determined that Google illegally monopolized parts of its advertising technology business to master the program advertising market, the company’s main source of revenue. Google made nearly $ 30.4 billion in revenue worldwide last year by putting ads on other applications and websites. Now, a significant portion of these sales are threatened by penalties that may follow the Brinkema sentence. The best scenario for American consumers is a browser experience that is full of advertising and paywalls less and more content selection.
“In addition to depriving competitors of the ability to compete, [Google’s] Deprivation behavior significantly damaged Google’s publisher customers, competitive trends and ultimately information consumers on the open web. “
It was found that Google Part 2 of Sherman’s law has violated the anti -monopoly law in the United States, “by achieving and maintaining monopoly on the market server market open and open display market display market, and illegally disagreed its advertising server (DFP) and Ad Exchange (Ad Exchange).” “In other words, the method that Google tied to parts of its advertising technology was considered illegal.
Online advertising ends with consumers after crossing a chain of systems that link publishers to advertisers. Google has long been considered as the main provider of tools at almost every step of the process, which critics believe that the company enables the company to present preferential systems to its own systems and pull competitors out. Some Google offerings were made by purchasing, such as buying DoubleClick in 2007.
But Brinkema rejected the Ministry of Justice’s claim that Google illegally monopolized some of the tools used by advertisers to buy advertising, claiming that the government’s definition of the market was not very narrow and bad. As a result, Google was not determined to be a monopoly because it was related to advertising purchasing tools, but it seemed to be one of the publisher’s market for the sale of advertising space.
The company relies on the fact that not all the plaintiff’s claims are in court. The Vice President for Google’s supervisory affairs, Lee-Mollaland, made a statement about X, saying that Google had “half of the case” and the company intends to reconsider the other half.
“The court found that our advertising tools, such as DoubleClick, would not harm the competition,” said Moleland.
The first petition was filed by the Ministry of Justice and eight states in January 2023, claiming that Google had illegally attracted competition in the advertising market by acting as a powerful intermediary in advertising business and reducing advertising revenue in the process. Google has argued that there is a lot of competition in the online advertising market. The case was tried last September and the final arguments were presented in November.
The Ministry of Justice immediately did not respond to the request of the verdict. Jonathan Counter, a lawyer who overseen the trial during the trial, wrote in X that “Thursday is a great victory for anti -monopoly, media industry and free and free internet.”
Last August, a regional judge for Columbia district, Amit Mehta, ruled that Google has maintained illegal monopoly in both public search and public search text advertising. The Ministry of Justice has suggested that Google be quickly and completely diverted and that its Chrome web browser “and for preferential treatment on its iPhones stop paying partners like Apple. Google is fighting offers and the trial for Meta to reach the final solution is due to start on Monday.
BRINKEMA has called on Google and the Ministry of Justice to propose a plan to determine the solutions in the Ad Tech case. The company is ordered to sell its advertising tools to publishers.
